Performance-Based Budgeting on Strategic Planning: The Case Study in Turkish Higher Education System
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Many important changes such as institutional autonomy, performance highlighting, a high level of responsibility or quality assurance etc. have occurred since the implementation of new public management in corporate governance area around the World. So notion of performance has become significant in public sector, and performance success levels of public institutions and corporations have started to play important roles while allocating treasure grants to them. Thus Performance-based budgeting method is preferred in many developed and developing countries. To ensure compliance with global changes, Performance-based Budgeting Based on Strategic Planning has been applied to Turkish public institutions and corporations since the adoption of Public Financial Management and Control Act No. 5018. Performance tables with indicators, strategic plans or activity reports have become to be taken into consideration while providing treasury grants to Turkish public institutions and corporations. In the context of higher education, similar implementation is valid, and performance goal tables, strategic plans or activity reports etc. are prepared regularly every year by higher education institutions. However, there are serious problems in Turkish higher education system, when it is compared to higher education systems in developed countries. This study reviews the literature comprehensively. This paper presents an overview of the current state of performance-based budgeting in Turkish higher education system and emphasizes its deficiencies. Accordingly, the aim of this study is to examine Performance-based Budgeting Based on Strategic Planning in Turkish higher education system, and to perform a comprehensive analysis.
Keywords: performance-based budgeting; strategic planning; performance indicators; higher education;
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
References
Acar, I. A. (2011). Plan-Butce iliskisi ve universitelerde stratejik planlama. Kamu Mali Yonetimi ve Denetimi Sempozyumu Kitabi, 85–97. Alkaraan, F. & Jaba, A. (2011). Higher education budgeting reform: Towards eefficiency, effectiveness and eonomy. In International Higher Education Congress: New Trends and Issues, 2, 5, 1135-1141.
Alshamy-Alsaeed, A.S. (2011). Funding mechanism and quality assurance systems in highereducation in Egypt in comparative perspective (Doctoral Dissertation).The University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
Badem, A. C., Kilinc, Y. & Kavas, T. (2013). Performance-based budgeting process in Turkey: Kocaeli University case. Kocaeli University, Social Science Journal. 26, 77-104.
Bunting, L. & Cloete N. (2004). International perspectives on performance indicators. Developing performance indicators for higher education South African case study. Creda Communications. CAPE Town. South Africa.
Cetin, H. & Tas, S. (2012). Comparison of model with higher education institutions in the Mediterraneanregion strategic plans DPT. International Journal of Alanya Faculty of Business. 4 (2), 57-67. Dougherty, K. J. & Reddy, V. (2011). The impacts of state performance funding systems on higher education institutions: Research literature review and policy recommendations. CCRC Working Paper No. 37. Community College Research Center, Columbia University. Kahveci, T. C., Uygun, O., Tekez, E. K., Sevincli, A., Kilicarslan, A. G. & Dulger, E. (2012). Evaluation of public strategic planning models for Turkish Universities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 138-148.
Kanaev A. & Tuijnman A. (2001). Prospects for selecting and using indicators for benchmarking Swedish higher education. Swedish Institute for Studies in Education and Research Drottning Kristinasväg 33D. ISSN 1650–3821.
Kurt, T. & Gumus, S. (2015). Trends of financing higher education in the world and recommendations for Turkey. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 5 (1), 14-26.
Lewis, R. D., Hendel, D.D. & Kallsen, L. (2007). Performance indicators as a foundation of institutional autonomy: Implications for higher education institutions in Europe. Tertiary Education and Management, 13 (3), 203-226.
Margues, M. C. C. (2004). Key performance indicator in Portuguese public universities. http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/09240.pdf, Access Date: 25.10.2014.
Markic, D. (2014). A review on the use of performance indicators in the public sector. TEM Journal. 3 (1), 22-28.
Serdar, A. M. (2010). Performance management and key performance indicators for higher education institutions in Serbia. Perspectives of Innovations, Economics and Business, 6 (3), 120-124.Seybert, A. J.(2012). Identifying key performance indicators: The foundation of an institutional dashboard. file:///C:/Users/aidata/Downloads/seybert2.pdf. Access Date: 09.12.2014.
Sezgin, A. (2011). Hesap verilebilirlik ve ozerklik dengesinin universiteler acisindan degerlendirilmesi. Kamu Mali Yonetimi ve Denetimi Sempozyumu Kitabi, 226–230.
Sporn, B. (2003). Convergence or divergence in international higher education policy: Lessons from Europe. Forum for The Future of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/FFPFP0305.pdf. on 09.12.2014.
The Republic of Turkey, General Directorate of Budget and Fiscal Control (2009). Performance program preparation guide. Ankara.
The Republic of Turkey, General Directorate of Budget and Fiscal Control (2003). Public Financial Management and Control Law No: 5018. 24.12.2003 Date ve Number: 25326.
Tugen, K., Gursoy, G. & Ozen, A. (2011). Performance based budgeting system and assessment of the application in Dokuz Eylul University. Butce Dunyasi Dergisi, 35, 3-18.
Uluturk, S. (2012). Yeni kamu isletmeciligi yaklasimi, performans esasli butceleme ve universitelerde performans uygulamasi. 7. Karaburun Bilim Kongresi. Izmir.
Uluturk, S. & Dane, K. (2008). Financing higher education; Neo-liberal transformation and Turkey. Educatiom Science Society Journal. 6, 22, 108-129.
WU, C. S. & Cheng-Chen, R.J. (2012). A study on key performance indicators (KPIs) for basic education in Taiwan. International Conference: Innovative Research in a Changing and Challenging World. December.
Yuksekogretim Akademik Degerlendirme ve Gelistirme Komisyonu (YODEK). (2007). Yuksekogretim kurumlarinda akademik degerlendirme ve kalite gelistirme rehberi. Ankara.
Yuksekogretim Kurulu (YOK). (2007). Turkiye’nin yuksekogretim stratejisi. Ankara